Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Who are you and what have you done with Tontar? That was actually fairly reasonable... Re-read the press releases...the claim is that they ARE related to humans...at least closely enough to interbreed. NOPE. The conclusion was that we have a HUMAN MOTHER (mitochondrial DNA) and an *UNKOWN* other (father). The conclusion is completly based on the MOTHER's (human) DNA. You can't make any OTHER conclusions here....other than HUMAN DNA being present..but it's ONLY maternal. That portion may be a result of contamination. Edited December 7, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 It is not clear. A single hybridization shouldn't be the start of a new species. It should be diluted over the course of several generations. She makes it sound like the start of a new species when she says that bigfoot is a hybrid that came about by a female modern human mating with an unknown hominin. It doesn't quite add up but I could understand the usage of hybrid if the most commonly used diagnostic feature, the mitochondrial DNA, was modern human. The unanswered question is how much of the nuclear DNA is modern human or to put it another way if more modern humans are in the ancestry. If not then it would be very difficult to justify calling it a hybrid even though I would expect that distinction and nit picking would be lost on most people. Bob, I really respect your opinion, and your knowledge, about matters related to BF. In particular, about genetics. That prompts my question. Why couldn't the a new species be created from a single hybridization? Wiia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 The Science of DNA will prevail, after all, that is what started the ball rolling.. The Science of DNA, is the centerpiece of The Ketchum Report. The Sierra kills and the Erickson film(s) are simply pluses, added to evidence already listed by Mulder. It ( the quest for evidence of the existence of Sasquatch ) ain't over til the Boss Lady Sings .... ( not Igor ) All. The huff, posturing and negative posts, are just opinions, bad feelings and speculation. Believers should deal only with facts... Trust in the fact that this quest is where it is now... This is a time to show restraint AND ......."Patience" little grasshopper.... I am sure we are right, so lets let Melba finish what Melba and David et al .... Started.. Geeeesh guys, Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I was told during several conversations (phone/email) that the journal would not accept that there was no clear photo/video evidence if people could gather DNA evidence. It sounded to me like it was an ultimatum. Apparently she came up with enough to satisfy them if she is now confident it will publish here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) NOPE. The conclusion was that we have a HUMAN MOTHER (mitochondrial DNA) and an *UNKOWN* other (father). The conclusion is completly based on the MOTHER's (human) DNA. You can't make any OTHER conclusions here....other than HUMAN DNA being present..but it's ONLY maternal. That portion may be a result of contamination. I quote FROM the press release, please note the bolded parts: “Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens. So what is so ludicrous about there being another hominid species out there as yet undocumented? We only documented Floresiensis a few years ago, and it too existed within the last 15,000 years. Edited December 7, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I'll be back in two months. You'll see NOTHING...trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I was told during several conversations (phone/email) that the journal would not accept that there was no clear photo/video evidence if people could gather DNA evidence. Am I the only one going WTF about that statement? Not that that was what you were told, indie, but the statement itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I quote FROM the press release, please note the bolded parts: So what is so ludicrous about there being another hominid species out there as yet undocumented? We only documented Floresiensis a few years ago, and it too existed within the last 15,000 years. Stay tuned..this smoke and mirrors. Complete BS. Sorry..I would LOVE to see something definitive...this isn't folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Stay tuned..this smoke and mirrors. Complete BS. Sorry..I would LOVE to see something definitive...this isn't folks. Translation: I just got caught in a factual error and don't want to admit it. Edited December 7, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Am I the only one going WTF about that statement? Not that that was what you were told, indie, but the statement itself. Me too M....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Who are you and what have you done with Tontar? That was actually fairly reasonable... I have my moments. :-) I really respect your opinion, and your knowledge, about matters related to BF. In particular, about genetics. That prompts my question. Why couldn't the a new species be created from a single hybridization? I am not the one to answer that question, but in my head I relate it to breeding other animals. We breed dogs occasionally. If you take a German Shepherd and breed it to a Pit Bull, you will get a cross bred dog. It will have features of each parent, in general. That would have tee appearance of a hybrid between the two breeds. But if that half bred litter goes back to the German Shepherd farm and only breeds back to German Shepherds, it will, over time, lose all that it gained from the Pit Bull. Especially after as man generations would have transpired as what is proposed for the 15,000 year old original hybridizing event that formed the sasquatch. Unless there was a continued breeding program going on to isolate and maintain the mix, the mixed breeds would eventually give up the appearance and eventually the genes, obtained in the mixing. The Pit Bull would eventually be bred out of the Shepherd, and if the unknown primate kept the offspring of human primate breeding, eventually the human genes would be bred back out of the descendants. At least that's how it would seem to me. That's how you "fix" some dog breeds that end up with genetic issues; you bring in another breed to add hybrid vigor, weed out the bad genes, then breed back to the original breed enough times to eliminate all but the one repaired gene (if that's possible). In layman's terms anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I was told during several conversations (phone/email) that the journal would not accept that there was no clear photo/video evidence if people could gather DNA evidence. It sounded to me like it was an ultimatum. Apparently she came up with enough to satisfy them if she is now confident it will publish here. Who told you that? And when? It's just rumormongering without backup! GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) @ Tontar: You also have to take into account the need for a stable, viable population. Any individual breeding of a H Sapiens with a Hominid X could result in an offspring that was primarily H Sapiens, primarily Hominid X, or some admixture of the two, depending on luck of the genetic draw. In order to develop a consistent "package" of traits you would need many many breedings not just to stabilize the genome, but to build the population OF that genome to a level where it was self-sustaining. Edited December 7, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Translation: I just got caught in a factual error and don't want to admit it. PLEASE INDICATE THE FACTUAL ERROR...WOULD LOVE TO RESPOND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 PLEASE INDICATE THE FACTUAL ERROR...WOULD LOVE TO RESPOND. I already did ( http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__st__10950#entry665003 ) and you tried to blow it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts